The Raids Of Saint-King Olaf In England And The Brutal Execution Of An Archbishop of Canterbury

Olaf Haraldsson, born in 995, was a member of the Norwegian royal family and the alleged godson of the Christian King Olaf Tryggvason of Norway (r. 995-1000). Although Olaf Haraldsson eventually became the king of his homeland, he had to wait for his throne, as a Scandinavian coalition of Danes, Swedes and Norwegians killed Olaf Tyggvason and imposed a new regime on Norway. Nine years later, Olaf Haraldsson would have been in his early teens when England was hit by a massive wave of reinvigorated Viking activity—these invasions would eventually force the English king, Æthelred the Unready, to flee to Normandy. Olaf, who later became a respected figure in the medieval church, was among the Vikings who journeyed to England in the first decades of the 11th century. His behavior there, however, was not so saintly.

At the head of a fleet of ships with a veteran band of guardians and family friends, young Olaf reportedly reached the shores of England around 1009.  Commentary on what exactly he did in England from this point on is a curious topic. Sources such as the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, Florence of Worcester (d. 1118), Henry of Huntingdon (d. 1160), and the 11th-century court poets, Sigvat the Skald and Óttar the Black, who are also cited in the Saga of St. Olaf from the Heimskringla, all agree on the same setting and timeline of events. According to all of these texts, Viking armies were present at London in 1009, at East Anglia in 1010, and captured Canterbury between 1011 and 1012. The 11th-century Nordic sources place Olaf Haraldsson usually on the side of the Vikings during these battles and sieges. Yet, Snorri Sturluson (c. 1179-1241), the compiler of poems and writer of the Heimskringla, contradicted his sources (Sigvat and Óttar) and oddly placed Olaf on the side of the English at all times during his stay in Britain. Snorri Sturluson, however, was writing long after Olaf Haraldsson had become a beloved and respected figure in the church, and he may have been trying to paint this unsaintly period of Olaf’s life as rosily as possible. Olaf did indeed eventually aid the English, but that defection came as late as 1012, by which point he had been slaughtering Englishmen for years.

The reason Olaf Haraldsson is believed to have been in England in 1009 is because he was a witness to (and participant in) a Viking siege of London during the reign of Æthelred the Unready. Only in the year 1009, were both King Æthelred and Olaf alive at the time of a Viking siege of London. For that year, the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle stated, “And they [the Vikings] often fought against the town of London, but to God be praise that it yet stands sound” (ASC 1009). The aforementioned Scandinavian skald, Óttar the Black, also wrote of the event:

“Boldly brokest London

Bridge’s towers, thou Odin’s-

Storm-of-steel’s keen urger,

Striving to win England.”

(cited in Saint Olaf’s Saga, chapter 13)

Perhaps, as Snorri Sturluson claimed, Olaf’s participation in the attack on London Bridge was a move to help the English—Óttar the Black was also cited as stating, “Landedst, and land gavest, liege-lord to Æthelred [the Unready]. Much did need thee, mighty man of war, the sovran” (cited in Saint Olaf’s Saga, chapter 13). Then again, due to the unknown location of these lines in the skald’s original poem, the “land gavest” phase in Olaf’s relationship with Æthelred the Unready may have occurred years after the incident at London.

Olaf Haraldsson’s actions are easier to decipher when he reached East Anglia in 1010. The entry for that year in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle stated:

“the beforementioned army came to East Anglia, and went forthwith to where they understood Ulfkytel was with his force…And then the East Anglians immediately fled. Then Cambridgeshire stood firmly against them. There were slain Æthelstan, the king’s son-in-law, and Oswig and his son, and Wulfric Leofwine’s son, and Eadwig Æfic’s brother, and many other good thanes, and people out of number… And the Danes had possession of the place of carnage” (ASC 1010).

Óttar the Black, and his uncle Sigvat the Skald, both mentioned this event in their poems. They agreed with Anglo-Saxon sources that a large battle took place in the domain of Ulfkytel (or Ulfkel), specifically at a place that they called Hringmara Heath, which has been identified as Ringmere, East Anglia. Sigvat the Skald wrote:

“Even a seventh time Olaf

urged a bloody sword-thing

in the land of Ulfkel,

as I heard it told me.

Hringmara Heath full was—

high were piled the dead—of

Ella’s offspring [Englishmen], whom the

heir of Harald [Olaf Haraldsson] battled.”

(cited in Saint Olaf’s Saga, chapter 13)

Sigvat’s nephew, Óttar the Black, more clearly stressed that Olaf was battling the Anglo-Saxons, not fellow Norwegians or Danes, in his own poem about the battle:

“Liege-lord, then learned I that

laden was with corpses

Hringmara Heath all bloody,

when that inland you battled.

Bowed and overborne, king,

by you, country-folk of

England, awed, submitted

or else fled off headlong.”

(cited in Saint Olaf’s Saga, chapter 14)

After piling English dead high in East Anglia, Olaf followed a Viking force to Canterbury and participated in a Viking siege against the city in 1011. The poets, Sigvat and Óttar, claimed that Olaf played a leading role in the capture of Canterbury and caused great death and destruction in that city. Óttar the Black wrote:

“generous king, you captured

Canterbury in the morning.

Fiercely burning, firebrands

fell into houses, nor didst,

liege-lord, learned I, spare the

lives of luckless burghers.”

(cited in Saint Olaf’s Saga, chapter 15)

Anglo-Saxon sources corroborated that Canterbury was captured and burned by Vikings in 1011. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and the Chronicle of Florence of Worcester provided much more information than the Nordic Skalds. They claimed that the city was betrayed to the Vikings by a certain abbot or archdeacon named Ælmar, and that Archbishop Ælfeah of Canterbury (also spelled Elphege or Alphege) was among the prominent people captured during the sack of the city. In his entry for year 1011, Florence of Worcester wrote:

“they [the Vikings] dug a trench round Canterbury, and laid siege to it. On the twentieth day of the siege, through the treachery of the archdeacon Ælmar, whose life St. Elphege had formerly saved, one quarter of the city was set on fire, the army entered, and the place was taken…Meanwhile, Alphage, the archbishop, was seized, and being loaded with fetters was imprisoned and tortured in various ways. Ælmar, the abbot of St. Augustine’s monastery, was permitted to depart; Godwin, bishop of Rochester, was made prisoner, as well as Leofruna, abbess of St. Mildred, Alfred, the king’s reeve, with the monks and canons, and vast numbers of the people of both sexes…When the people had been thus slaughtered, and the city pillaged and burnt to the ground, Alphege, the archbishop, was brought out in fetters and dragged along, severely wounded, to the ships” (Florence of Worcester, AD 1011).

The Viking force that sacked Canterbury kept Archbishop Ælfeah captive for the remainder of the year, as well as several months into the next. They were apparently hoping to ransom the archbishop for a hefty sum of money. Archbishop Ælfeah and the Vikings, however, did not get along at all. As the months went on and no ransom was promised, the raiders became more and more loathsome of the clergyman. By April of 1012, the Vikings finally reached their limit and decided to kill the archbishop. Ælfeah’s gruesome and chaotic death was reported by the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle:

“Then on the Saturday the army was greatly excited against the bishop, because he would not promise them any money, but forbade that anything should be given for him. They were also very drunk, for wine had been brought thither from the South. They then took the bishop, led him to their ‘husting’ [assembly]…and there shamefully murdered him; they pelted him with bones and with the heads of oxen; and one of them struck him on the head with an axe-iron, so that with the dint he sank down, and his holy blood fell on the earth, and his holy soul he sent forth to God’s kingdom” (ASC 1012).

The sack of Canterbury and the subsequent execution of Archbishop Ælfeah may have been a turning point for Olaf. According to the Anglo-Saxon sources, a sizable force from the Vikings that sacked Canterbury decided to split from the rest of the raiders not long after the killing of the archbishop. This splinter group (which likely included Olaf) then formed a mercenary contract with the English king before the end of 1012. On this event, the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle stated, “Then submitted to the king [Æthelred the Unready], from the army, five and forty ships, and promised him that they would defend this country; and he was to feed and clothe them” (ASC 1012). The appearance of this band of 45 mercenary Viking ship crews meshes well with Snorri Sturluson’s statement that, after the events of Canterbury, “King Olaf had under him the defense of England” (Heimskringla, Saint Olaf’s Saga, chapter 15). The poet Sigvat also wrote a verse about Olaf, which emphasized that he battled both Englishmen and Danes during his expedition in England:

“Scatheless, in that skirmish

scalps red he gave the English.

Dark-red billowed blood on

blades in Nÿjamótha.

Now have I nine battles

named for thee, king of Norway.

Danes fell where the deadly

dart-storm raged ‘gainst Olaf.”

(cited in Saint Olaf’s Saga, chapter 15)

Olaf Haraldsson (and Æthelred the Unready, for that matter) would not be staying in England for long. King Sweyn Forkbeard of Denmark (r. 986-1014)—one of the leaders from the coalition that had killed the previous king of Norway—arrived in England with a large force in 1013. Either upon or just before King Sweyn’s appearance in England, Olaf Haraldsson decided it was the opportune time to end his mercenary contract with England and to instead go raiding and adventuring on the European mainland. He was said to have pillaged regions of Spain, and then sailed to Normandy by 1013, where he may have been baptized or re-baptized, as he had reportedly already been given a semblance of a baptismal ceremony as a child in 998, during the reign of his godfather, Olaf Tryggvason. Well-traveled and reinvigorated in faith, Olaf Haraldsson returned to his homeland to seize the Norwegian throne around 1015.

Back in England, the legend of the slain Archbishop Ælfeah grew and the martyr was considered a saint by the mid-to-late 11th century. Ironically, Archbishop Ælfeah might have been beaten to sainthood by one of the Vikings who possibly was present at his execution. King Olaf Haraldsson, upon seizing power in Norway, devoted great attention to converting his subjects to the Christian religion, if not by the persuasion of his missionaries, then by the force of his military. His dedication to the conversion of Norway to Christianity apparently far outweighed his earlier Viking career and his likely involvement in the killing of an archbishop of Canterbury. King Olaf Haraldsson was slain in battle in 1030, and only one year later he was canonized as a saint. Reverence for Saint Olaf spread far and wide in Christendom—both the Roman Church and the Orthodox Church of Constantinople recognized his sainthood.

Written by C. Keith Hansley.

Picture Attribution: (Scene from the Saga of Olaf Tryggvason, illustrated by Halfdan Egedius (1877–1899), [Public Domain] via Creative Commons).

Sources:

• The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle translated by Benjamin Thorpe in 1861 and republished by Cambridge University Press, 2012.
• The Chronicle of Florence of Worcester translated by Thomas Forester. London: Petter and Galpin, originally published 1854. 
• Heimskringla, by Snorri Sturluson and translated by Lee Hollander. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1964, 2018. 
• https://www.britannica.com/biography/Olaf-II-Haraldsson 
• https://www.britannica.com/biography/Sweyn-I 
• https://www.britannica.com/biography/Saint-Aelfheah 
• https://www.encyclopedia.com/people/history/scandinavian-history-biographies/olaf-ii 
• http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11234a.htm 
• https://archive.org/details/chroniclehenryh00foregoog/page/n229  

The Lifelong Payments Of Tribute By King Æthelred The Unready To The Danes

Æthelred the Unready became king of England in 978, following the assassination of his brother, King Edward the Martyr. Æthelred was reportedly only ten years old when he ascended to the throne, and his epithet, Unready (Unraed), actually meant “bad counsel,” as the young king’s regent, advisors and vassals gave him little sound support during his life. Yet, the modern definition of unready also fits King Æthelred, for when a relentless wave of Viking activity began plaguing England in 980, the king and the kingdom were caught totally unprepared.

King Æthelred and his poor advisors may have tried to imitate the success of their famed ancestor, King Alfred the Great (r. 871-899). Alfred had paid the Vikings for peace in his first year as king, but it was only a temporary truce and the Vikings came back to force Alfred into the marshes of Somerset by 978. Yet, Alfred mobilized his forces, wrested back control of Wessex, and, by the end of his reign had implemented a network of military garrisons in the burghs of his kingdom that were strong enough to defeat Viking raiders even when Alfred was not present on the battlefield. The success of Alfred’s defense system was showcased in the Battle of Lea (c. 895), where Anglo-Saxon garrisons worked together to defeat a Viking encampment while Alfred was elsewhere in the kingdom building river defenses. Around a century later, Æthelred the Unready apparently attempted a similar scheme of paying the invaders to buy time and letting his regional garrisons deal with the Viking problem. Unfortunately, the burghs of Æthelred’s day no longer had the individual power to effectively fight off the Vikings, and, unlike Alfred the Great, Æthelred seemed totally incapable of adapting to the new situation. Consequently, while Alfred is remembered as one of Britain’s greatest kings, Æthelred is regarded as one of its worst.

In 991, after over a decade of Viking activity, King Æthelred took one of his first executive actions against the Viking threat. To set the scene, a powerful Viking force had just sacked the city of Ipswich and killed the regional noble, Aldorman Brihtnoth, in a battle at Maldon. One of the leaders of the Viking force was apparently Olaf Tryggvason, who would go on to become the king of Norway in 995. Instead of mustering his forces against this Viking threat, King Ætheltred instead pulled together England’s finances and paid off the invaders with a tribute of 10,000 Anglo-Saxon pounds. Æthelred did, however, later make an effort to gather together a fleet of ships in 992, but the man he put in charge of the armada unfortunately defected to the side of the Vikings.

The tribute payment (and the poorly-led fleet) did not bring Æthelred peace, as Vikings continued to wreak havoc on England in 992 and 993. By 994, Olaf Tryggvason had returned, this time with King Sweyn Forkbeard of Denmark. With a large fleet at their disposal, Olaf and Sweyn raided all over England, attacking Essex, Kent, Sussex and Hampshire. Once again, Æthelred apparently left the defense of the kingdom to his regional nobles, and no known military action was taken by the king, himself. As the Vikings continued to sow destruction, Æthelred decided to offer a second payment of tribute—this time reportedly around 16,000 Anglo-Saxon pounds. The wealth did buy off Olaf Tryggvason, who went to Norway to seize the throne and never returned to Britain. Yet, the money did not stop other Vikings from raiding English soil.

After a brief period of peace, Vikings returned to cause mayhem in Æthelred’s kingdom. Widespread annual raids resumed in 997. By 999, Æthelred finally decided to raise his land and sea power against the invaders, but by this point, the kingdom’s military was in a neglected and pitiful state. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle did not pull any punches when assessing Æthelred’s attempt to take a more personal control over the kingdom’s defense in 999: “in the end neither the naval force nor the land force was productive of anything but the people’s distress, and a waste of money, and the emboldening of their foes” (ASC, 999). By 1002, Æthelred decided to pay a third tribute to the Vikings, giving them a reported 24,000 pounds. Yet, that very year, the Anglo-Saxons idiotically massacred Danish settlers in England, ensuring further confrontation with King Sweyn Forkbeard of Denmark.

As could be expected, when King Sweyn heard that his countrymen had been ruthlessly purged in England, he set sail for Britain and embarked on a relentless war against Æthelred as early as 1003. By this point, King Æthelred decided to let his regional nobles once again the take lead in the war. Sweyn Forkbeard apparently faced only regional garrisons until 1006, when Æthelred decided to muster another army. Yet, as before, Æthelred’s military was still in poor shape and was woefully inadequate to halt Sweyn Forkbeard’s campaign. As the Danes plundered region after region, Æthelred the Unready pulled together a fourth tribute payment of 36,000 pounds.

King Sweyn accepted the payment and England was at relative peace for several years. In that brief respite, Æthelred tried to build up England’s navy, but his progress was undermined by unruly noblemen, such as Brihtric and Wulfnoth Cild, who reportedly put around 100 of Æthelred’s new ships out of action during a personal feud. Ironically, it was right after the Englishmen destroyed their own ships that Sweyn Forkbeard returned to England in 1009. From 1009-1012, King Sweyn’s forces acted as an unstoppable steamroller, flattening all resistance in their path. King Æthelred’s distress can be glimpsed at the enormous tribute—the largest of his reign—that he sent to the Danes. In 1012, Æthelred sent as his fifth tribute a whopping 48,000 Anglo-Saxon pounds. This time, however, Sweyn Forkbeard showed no mercy and continued his campaign despite the money. In 1013, King Sweyn conquered England and Æthelred fled to Normandy.

Sweyn Forkbeard, however, did not have a long reign as the king of England—he died in 1014. Sweyn’s son and heir, Canute, was reportedly in the north of England at the time and eager to return to Denmark to secure his hold on the Danish homeland. In the uncertainty of succession, the people of England invited Æthelred to return to Britain to retake the throne, an offer he gladly accepted. When Æthelred returned to England in 1014, he continued his life-long foreign policy of paying tribute. In an effort to appease King Canute, Æthelred sent a payment of 21,000 pounds to the Danes. It would be his sixth and final tribute. Nevertheless, Canute returned to England in 1015, determined to retake the English throne. Æthelred died in London in 1016, shortly before King Canute’s fleet arrived to besiege the city. In all, Æthelred’s six tribute payments to the Vikings totaled around 155,000 Anglo-Saxon pounds. In his book, The Pound: A Biography, author David Sinclair estimated that a single Anglo-Saxon pound from the day of Æthelred the Unready could purchase 15 cows. If that calculation is correct, then the Vikings would have been able to purchase a massive cattle herd numbering 2,325,000 animals with all of the money given to them by Æthelred the Unready.

Written by C. Keith Hansley.

Picture Attribution: (Miniature of Æthelred the Unready from MS Royal 14 B VI, placed in front of a image of bags of money from pixabay.com, both [Public Domain] via Creative Commons).

Sources:

• The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle translated by Benjamin Thorpe in 1861 and republished by Cambridge University Press, 2012.
• Asser’s Life of King Alfred and Other Contemporary Sources translated, introduced and denoted by Simon Keynes and Michael Lapidge. New York: Penguin Classics, 2004. 
• https://www.britannica.com/biography/Ethelred-the-Unready 
• https://www.britroyals.com/kings.asp?id=ethelred2 
• https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-26169070 
• https://www.britannica.com/biography/Olaf-Tryggvason 
• https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofEngland/Sweyn-Forkbeard/ 
• https://englishhistory.net/vikings/sweyn-forkbeard/ 
• https://www.britannica.com/biography/Canute-I  

A Small Dog Reportedly Led To The Death Of Jarl Rognvald Brusason Of Orkney

In the year 1030, Rognvald Brusason, son of Jarl Brusi of Orkney, fought on the side of King Olaf II of Norway (Saint Olaf) at the Battle of Stiklestad. Rognvald had first joined Olaf’s retinue as a political hostage, meant to keep his father in line, but he grew to become a well-respected and trusted member of the king’s court. Unfortunately, Saint Olaf was killed during the battle, but Rognvald was credited with saving the slain king’s half-brother, a fifteen-year-old future king who would come to be known as Harald the Ruthless. Rognvald, Harald and other supporters of the late Saint Olaf fled to the lands of the Kievan Rus. Harald went on to join the Varangian Guard in service to the emperors of Constantinople, while Rognvald became a respected mercenary working under the kings of Kiev. Magnus, a son of Saint Olaf, was also present with the Rus. When Magnus “the Good” was invited back to Norway to become king in 1035, Rognvald Brusason followed him back to the kingdom and became a close acquaintance of the king.

While staying in Kiev or upon his return to Norway, Rognvald discovered that his father, Brusi, had died and that Rognvald’s uncle, Jarl Thorfinn, had claimed Brusi’s land for himself. According to the Orkneyinga Saga, the Jarls of Orkney not only ruled their title’s namesake, but also administered Shetland and Caithness. Jarl Thorfinn was also reportedly expanding his influence into the Hebrides at that time. Once King Magnus was firmly back in control of Norway, Rognvald brought up the topic of Orkney and asked the king to help him claim his inheritance from Jarl Thorfinn. King Magnus agreed to help, naming Rognvald as a jarl of Orkney, as well giving him a small fleet of three ships.

Inheritance and division of rule had long been a tense issue in the jarldom of Orkney. During the reign of Saint Olaf, the jarldom had been divided into thirds. According to the Orkneyinga Saga, Jarl Brusi (Rognvald’s father) ruled one-third of the jarldom, Jarl Thorfinn ruled another third, and the last third belonged to the Norwegian crown. The kings of Norway, however, gave their own third to the jarl of their choice, making that chosen jarl of Orkney dominant in the region. Saint Olaf reportedly chose Jarl Brusi as his governor of the royal third in Orkney, yet Jarl Thorfinn was given control of the royal third when King Canute sent Saint Olaf into exile in 1028. In keeping with the tradition of Norwegian kings giving control of their third of Orkney to their favorite jarl, King Magnus sent Rognvald not only with the authority to claim his father’s land, but appointed him as administrator of the royal third, as well.

King Alfred The Great And His Chaotic First Year Of Rule

Nothing in the life of King Alfred the great was simple or easy, so it is fitting that he had an inaugural year that was fraught with trials and peril. In early 871, Alfred was the heir of his brother, King Æthelred, who had been in power since 866. Alfred was about eighteen years old when his brother became king, and by early 871 he was twenty-two or twenty-three years of age. King Æthelred seemed to cherish his brother’s advice and company—whenever Æthelred martialed his forces, Alfred was always by his side. Luckily for Wessex, this hands-on battlefield and leadership experience likely gave Alfred some confidence when the crown was unexpectedly thrust upon his head.

The Shakespearean Death of King Cynewulf

Upon the death of King Cuthred of Wessex around the year 756, the throne passed to Sigebert, a distant member of the royal family. As the new king was not a direct descendant of his predecessor, he was vulnerable to court intrigue. Unluckily for him, another distant kinsman of the late King Cuthred had his own ambitions for the crown, and the prospective usurper waited only a year to strike. In the end, corruption was Sigebert’s undoing—either his own corruption, or the corrupting influence of his rival. Sometime during the year 757, the officials of Wessex abruptly turned against Sigebert. The witan, a high advisor of the king, charged Sigebert with allegations of unrighteousness and corrupt behavior. A man named Cynewulf then claimed the throne, with the witan’s support, and his first order of action was to chase his rival into a forest, where the unfortunate King Sigebert was murdered.

King Cynewulf went on to rule for multiple decades. By Anglo-Saxon standards, he was a decent king. As a warrior, Cynewulf fought bravely and, as a Christian monarch, the monk-historians of medieval Britain seemed to have no complaint with the way he dealt with the church. The biggest blemish on Cynewulf’s rule was the battle he lost to King Offa of Mercia, the high king (or Bretwalda) of the time, at Bensington in 779. Overall, however, Cynewulf kept the strength of Wessex largely intact during his reign. Nevertheless, despite his successes, the death of his predecessor, Sigebert, would haunt Cynewulf to the end.

Startling Saints—The Adventures of Saint Germanus of Auxerre

Saint Germanus (or Germain) of Auxerre lived in one of the most chaotic times in Roman history, under the reigns of some of the most incompetent Roman Emperors that ever existed. His life, as a Roman government official and then as a bishop, was notable and influential enough to ensure him a place in the history books, yet Germanus’ biographers and commentators also recorded the numerous miracles that were attributed to the saint. In this account, the miracles will be left in the narrative, so that readers can decide for themselves how much or how little credence to give the miraculous events reported to have occurred during St. Germanus’ life.

Jack The Ripper May Have Been One Of The First Self-Named Serial Killers

(Jack the Ripper image titled "A Suspicious Character" from Illustrated London News for October 13,1888, [Public Domain] via Creative Commons)

Mass murderers and predator killers have plagued mankind since before recorded history, but the idea of the “serial killer”—with its quasi celebrity status—is more of a recent development. Many think the first recognizable serial killer of the modern variety was Jack the Ripper. Jack’s multiple killings in the fall of 1888 not only caused widespread terror, but also sparked a remarkable media sensation.

One of the side effects of the media’s attention was hundreds of anonymous letters that claimed to be sent by the killer. All of the letters are viewed with extreme skepticism, but two of them (the so-called “Dear Boss” and “Saucy Jacky” letters) are thought to be the most legitimate. After assessing the writing style and tone of the letters, they are both thought to have been written by the same person. They both seem to have information that should have only been known by the police and the murderer. Furthermore, the two letters were sent directly to the Central News Agency to ensure media coverage. The letters, both signed with the name “Jack the Ripper,” are thought to have been the original source of the serial killer’s now globally-known name.

There Was An Incredible Amount Of Military Technological Advancement In the Decades Leading Up To World War I

(75mm pack howitzer M1920, c. 1921 [Public Domain] via Creative Commons)

By the end of the 19th century, into the early 20th century, the weapons of warfare were evolving at an alarming rate. Guns, explosives and machines were becoming increasingly more lightweight, powerful and exponentially more deadly. The tragedy of the situation was that very few people knew just how devastating many of these new weapons would be when a major war broke out. True, there were many wars in the years before World War One— such as the Franco-Prussian War (1870-1871), the First Sino-Japanese War (1894-1895), the Boer Wars (1880-1881 and 1889-1902), the Spanish-American War (1898), and the Ruso-Japanese War (1904-1905). Yet, in these wars, countries often remained doubtful about the new weaponry in their arsenals, and were still in a phase of experimentation and implementation. By the start of WWI in 1914, however, most major powers had adopted the latest guns, artillery, explosives, ships and planes, resulting in a Great War the likes of which the world had never before seen.

The 17th-Century Adventures Of The Outlaw, Henry Pitman

A doctor who was a rebel, a forced laborer, and an acquaintance of pirates

  (James Scott, Duke of Monmouth and Buccleuch by Jan van Wyck, by Jan Wyck (1644–1702), [Public Doman] via Creative Commons)

Rebel Doctor

The Catholic King James II of England ascended to power in 1685 after the death of his brother, King Charles II. In June of that same year, however, the late King Charles’ illegitimate son, the Duke of Monmouth, arrived on the coast of Dorset with a rebel army. Monmouth planned his rebellion to coincide with another revolt in Scotland, and he hoped to draw the majority of his manpower from the English Protestants who did not want to be ruled by a Catholic king.

For the rest of June, and into early July, Monmouth marched around the English countryside, recruiting a mass of unorganized, untrained and angry Englishmen. Around this time a doctor named Henry Pitman returned to see his family in Somersetshire after having been away in Italy. Pitman came from a relatively astute Quaker family that could be classified as belonging to the lower tier of the English gentry. The doctor heard of Monmouth’s Rebellion while he was visiting his family, and he began to feel that risky emotion that can bring either great reward or tremendous danger—curiosity.

The Battles of Boudica

Camulodunum, Londinium, Verulamium And The Battle Of Watling Street

 (Boudica and her rebels, by Joseph Martin Kronheim (1810–1896), [Public Domain] via Creative Commons)

Before reading about Boudica's sieges and battles against the forces of Rome in ancient Britain, take some time to look at Irina Yakubin's biographical article about Queen Boudica, her motivations for fighting, and her legacy, HERE. The article below will reference why Boudica began her rebellion, but the military struggle between Boudica and Governor Suetonius is the primary focus of this piece.

Gathering the Angry

When Roman occupiers publicly flogged the Iceni queen Boudica, and raped her two daughters, they unknowingly provided a horde of angry and vengeful Britons with a leader who would become legendary. Though the Iceni (before the floggings and rapes) had been willing to work with Rome, many other tribes had been hostile to Rome, in both thought and action, ever since Emperor Claudius invaded and occupied the British Isles in 43 CE. When Boudica called out for vengeance after her and her daughters’ terrible ordeal, multiple tribes (Trinovantes, Dumnonii and stragglers from the Caturvellauni) joined the Iceni in rebellion.

Boudica- The Avenging Queen

(Illustration of Boudica, courtesy of Irina Yakubin)

Boudica (also spelled Boudicca and Boadicea) was a tall, fierce woman, with long reddish hair, who ruled the Iceni tribe of East Anglia along with her husband, Prasutagus, during the Roman occupation of England. In what he must have considered an astute political gesture, Prasutagus named the Roman Emperor Nero co-heir to his lands, along with his two teenage daughters. Unfortunately, the Romans were not known for sharing, nor were they particularly advanced on the matter of gender equality.

When Prasutagus died, the Roman Governor of the region, Suetonius Paulinus, raided the land. When Boudica protested, she was flogged and forced to watch the rape of her two daughters.  Understandably angry, Boudica rallied the neighboring tribes into an all-out rebellion against Roman rule. The ancient Brits have had women in power for generations, and the Romans had abused many of the locals in the area. So when Boudica set out to raise a following, she amassed an army. The rebels razed several cities, including modern day London and Colchester, in an attempt to expel the Romans from Britannia.

Governor Suetonius led several unsuccessful campaigns against Boudica, whose army was so fierce that one Roman legion turned and ran from battle. After multiple defeats, the Romans retreated to the safety of the Roman military zone, where a final battle saw many casualties on both sides and resulted in a Roman victory.

It is important to note the accounts of the battle do come from Roman sources, which held quite a bit of bias against the Iceni Queen. However, it is known that Boudica and her daughters actively rallied the men to battle and that Boudica was a skilled warrior and commander. After her army was defeated, Boudica took poison to avoid being captured.

A National Hero?

Some scholars regard Boudica as a British national hero because she fought for the freedom of Britons from Roman occupation. Others, however, condemn the warrior queen for killing innocent people who were under Roman rule. It is important to remember, however, that Boudica lived in a time when such casualties of war were regrettable, but also acceptable and expected. Regardless of whether or not Boudica was a hero, she was certainly one tough warrior queen.

Written by Irina Yakubin

Sources:

• Boudica: Iron Age Warrior Queen by Richard Hingley and Christina Unwin.  
• http://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofEngland/Boudica/ 
• http://travesti.geophys.mcgill.ca/~olivia/BOUDICA/  
• http://www.royalty.nu/Europe/England/Boadicea.html

Startling Saints: The Saxon Saint Caedwalla

Exile, Kingship, War and Conquest—The life of a 7^th Century Warrior Saint

In the region of Wessex, during the middle of the 7^th century CE, there lived a king of Saxon descent who conquered much of southeastern England. Several kings were put to death by his executioners, and various communities were ravaged or massacred on the whim of this conquering king. This was King Caedwalla of Wessex—but there is a catch. He would later be recognized by the Christian church as a saint, and was even laid to rest in St. Peter’s Basilica.

(16th century mural of Caedwalla and Wilfrid painted by Lambert Barnard, [Public Domain] via Creative Commons)

Military Coups and Massacres in Indonesia

The Rise of the Suharto Regime and the Unimaginable Mass Murder of Around 1,000,000 Indonesians

The Quagmire of Independence

The Indonesian people began making huge leaps and bounds toward independence in one of the most tumultuous centuries in recorded history—the 20^th century. In that bloody span of 100 years, there were two World Wars, a Cold War of ideologies, and numerous contained wars, where the United States, the Soviet Union and China battled it out within smaller, allied states, such as Korea, Vietnam and Afghanistan. It was a time when every nation believed their own philosophy to be superior, and all countries were pressured to pick sides—Allies or Axis, NATO or Warsaw, capitalist or communist. Unfortunately for Indonesia, this was the world stage that their country was thrown into when they declared their independence.

(President Sukarno in Washington D.C. in 1956, photographed by Warren K. Leffler, U.S. News & World Report [Public Domain in U.S.], via Creative Commons)

The Artist That Painted Britain Orange and Red

The 18^th century revolutionary arsonist—Jack the Painter

Centuries ago, one man terrorized the streets of Britain. Fearful citizens organized into patrols to keep their cities safe. The King, government councils, and even private citizens, offered monetary rewards for the capture of this particular individual. The alias of this perpetrator was Jack. This was not Jack the Ripper—no, this was Jack the Painter, who went on a rampage of arson in 1776.

(Illustration of Scottish John the Painter circa 1777 [Public Domain], via Wikimedia Commons)